APHC010614632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33190/2025 Between: 1. M/S THIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS, D.NO 1-430 DWARAKA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A. SOMI REDDY S/O A. OBI REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCCCONTRACTOR D.NO 1-430, DWARAKA NAGAR ANANTHAPURAM TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PIU DIVISION, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT) 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PIU DIVISION, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, PIU DIVISION, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and delay on the part of the Respondents in releasing the fourth and final bill of Rs49,66,940/- for the work undertaken under Agreement No. 150/2017-18 dated-21.02.2018 for Providing BT Surface Road from YT Reddypalli state Border Via Rangapuramu in Roddam mandal, as arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14,19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the fourth and final bill of Rs49,66,940/- for the work undertaken under Agreement No.150/2017-18 dated-21.02.2018 to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to pay undisputed fourth and final bill of Rs49,66,940/- for the work undertaken under Agreement No. 150/2017-18 dated- 21.02.2018 to the petitioner, for Providing BT Surface Road from YT Reddypalli state Border Via Rangapuramu in Roddam mandal, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. Page 3 of 5 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.49,66,940/- payable to the petitioner in relation to execution of the work i.e. ‘Providing BT surface to the road from YT Reddypalli to State border via Rangapuram in Roddam Mandal Estimate Cost: Rs.300.00 Lakhs’, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division Puttaparthy, Sri Sathya Sai District. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a value of Rs.62,07,113/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after recoveries of Rs.12,40,173/-, is Rs.49,66,440/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.49,66,440/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.” 6. Given the instructions furnished by Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division Puttaparthy, Sri Sathya Sai District, the Writ Petition is disposed of p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.49,66,440/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within four (04) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 23.03.2026 IKN / JLSR p. 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33190 of 2025 Date: 23.03.2026 IKN / JLSR